On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:12:28PM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Having to choose between /60 and /48 would be much better than having
to choose between /64 and bigger in general, as it removes the "will
I ever need a second subnet" consideration, the average allocation
size goes down and moving to a /48 after having grown out of a /60
isn't too painful.
There's a certain appeal to this, to have to renumber before your
network grows too big. Interesting suggestion.
It's also really helpful if all ISPs use the same subnet sizes. For
instance, I can set up my routes as DHCPv6 prefix delegation clients,
so they can be reconfigured with new address prefixes automatically
when changing ISPs, but I still need to put the subnet bits (and
therefore the subnet size) in the configuration by hand, so having to
change that defeats the purpose of the exercise.
Which was the point of /48 pervasively?
--
Tim/::1
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf